User talk:Deweck

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck
In response to your message at Anne Delong's talk page, I've had a look at the draft. First of all, you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest; writing about close relatives is discouraged because it's hard to remain neutral about them. The draft currently isn't submitted for another review; you can submit it by adding to the very top. However, almost all sources are written or co-authored by Alain de Weck himself; Wikipedia content should be based on sources that are independent of the subject, such as peer-reviewed papers written by others that discuss de Weck's work, or newspaper articles about him. The only sources that satisfy this standard are the book review and the symposium proceedings, and the draft clearly isn't based on what those two sources say about de Weck. Thus it probably wouldn't be accepted in its current state. Yours, Huon (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Huon regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck
As you suggested I did review the conflicts of interest guidelines and believe that my submission is within Wikipedia's guidelines. While I am the son of the subject of the article I am also a scientists and professor and wrote the article from a neutral point of view. The references and links provided all are in the public domain and can be used to corroborate the facts in the article. It is self-evident that statements or claims regarding scientific results or output would primarily be based on articles co-authored by the subject himself or herself. The "external" validation from the symposium proceedings and book review are indeed correct. Additionally the external links to the scientific societies such as IUIS and WAO corroborate the positions that Alain de Weck has held in those organizations. I will add a newspaper article (in German) that appeared as the time of retirement in 1993 as a further source. Finally, I would like to point out that a German Wikipedia article on this individual already exists and that he passes the "eminence" test by Wikipedia. If this is still not satisfactory, I could hand off the article to another user, but I do not believe this would change much of the content of the article since it is written in a fact based language without the use of laudatory or other adjectives. I have submitted the article for re-review as you suggested. Many thanks for your time.

Deweck (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Claims regarding scientific results should still be based on third-party sources so we have a neutral evaluation of that work's significance. Basically, publishing papers is an academic's job - why are these papers and the results they cover significant? Similarly, the scientific societies themselves are poor judges of their own significance; it would be much more impressive if a third party had reported on those positions. Compare for example our Featured Article on Stephen Hawking: The vast majority of sources are third-party biographies, not his own research papers. See also WP:PRIMARY for the relevant guideline on primary sources.
 * Regarding the German Wikipedia: The Wikipedias in different languages have different standards, and the fact that one has an article doesn't mean any other should as well. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Huon (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that Stephen Hawking is a fair comparison. Not every scientist has major bibliographies written about them like Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Darwin etc... Clearly there are differences in terms of impact of contributions between scientists and in different fields as well. A more reasonable comparison to Prof. Alain de Weck is one of his deceased colleagues who has an article on Wikipedia: Albert Coons. His article also contains primary sources (primary are sources where the work was initially reported !) with some third party sources. This is quite similar to the proposed article that is currently under review. All the statements in the draft article, including the awards received are linked and traced to other outside references. Since Prof. de Weck has only been dead for one week, I expect that reviews of his work and assessments of the overall significance of his scientific career will be forthcoming and can be added in the future. Also, are you suggesting that the German Wikipedia has a lower standard than the English Wikipedia? I am not sure this would be a correct statement.

Deweck (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Professor Deweck has written so many papers; there must be others in his field who have discussed his work in their own papers (not just as a "see also", but serious discussion in order to relate his work to their own. This won't help with confirming his biographical information, but should help confirm the notability of his academic contributions.  It may take some work to find these, but as a professor yourself you will know where to look. I am sure that the German Wikipedia standards are not lower; it's just that they may be different and the reviewers here aren't familiar with them, and can't take them into account. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, please accept my condeolences; I mean no disrespect to you or to the memory of your father.
 * I already pointed you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the Albert Coons article is hardly a good example to follow. You may want to have a look at our Good Articles instead. And yes, I often felt that the German Wikipedia had lower standards of inclusion and a higher tolerance for primary sources - not that all articles at the English Wikipedia satisfy the higher standards, but we try. I may also be a victim of confirmation bias because I tend to only look at German Wikipedia articles when an editor argues we should have an article here because it exists over there - there may be other areas where the German Wikipedia's standards are higher than the English one's.
 * Anyway, surely high-profile awards such as the Robert Koch Prize have been covered by newspapers - the problem would be to find a 1970s newspaper covering it. The same goes for his scientific work - as Anne Delong said, surely third-party sources discussing his work exist, but finding them may be complicated. Huon (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhhh, okay I start to see your point better. Let me go on the hunt for other sources and references not authored or co-authored by the subject of the article himself as you suggested. Being allowed to cite sources in other languages (e.g. is also helpful). I will also reduce the number of cited articles as it may be bit excessive and create the (unintended) impression that the article is self-promotional. Let me get back to you after these revisions.

Deweck (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done extensive research and revised the draft article by (1) shortening its somewhat and (2) adding 9 external references not authored by Prof. de Weck. These references are listed below and include 4 scientific publications/reviews that discuss and cite his work, an entry in Who's Who of Science, two newspaper/magazine articles, and one press release and one notice by a professional society related to the Pirquet medal award. These are listed below:

Stewart G.T., “Allergy to penicillin and related antibiotics: antigenic and immunochemical mechanisms”, Annual Review of Pharmacology, 1973; 13:309-324

G. Cohen and Samter M. (Eds.), Excerpts from classics in allergy. Second edition. Edited by Sheldon, Symposia Foundation, 1992. 211 pp. Illustrated. Indexed.

World Who’s Who in Science. 1968, p. 454.

K Duchén,, R Einarsson, E Grodzinsky, G Hattevig, B Björkstén, Development of IgG1 and IgG4 Antibodies Against β-Lactoglobulin and Ovalbumin in Healthy and Atopic Children, Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, Volume 78, Issue 4 , Pages 363-368 , April 1997

Robert Koch Preis und -Medaille für schweizerischen und niederländischen Wissenschaftler, Personalia, June 1973; Vol.26, issue 6, pp. 407-408, doi: 10.1007|BF01632756

Wühtrich B., Wydler B., Zur spezifischen IgE-Diagnostik: Vergleich zweier In-Vitro Streifentests (IgE-Quick und Immunodot) mit CAP-FEIA System und den Proktests., Allergologie, 1999, 22: 215-222

Heska Acquires CMG Centre Medical of Switzerland, Press Release, PR Newswire, September 3, 1997

Dinosaurier der Immunologie geht in Pension, Newspaper Article, Der Bund, October 1, 1993

Notice of Award of Clemens von Pirquet Medal, Oesterische Gesellschaft fuer Allergologie und Immunologie (ÖGAI), Wissenschaftliche Veranstaltungen der ÖGAI, http://www.oegai.org,15-17.11.1990

I do believe that having added these references adds credibility to the article. I assume that once published the article will evolve by having additional edits and references provided by the wider community, particularly those with interest in Immunology and Allergy. Looking forward to the next step in the review/publication process on Wikipedia. My initial pushback has given way to respect for the level of rigor that Wikipedia demands and enforces.

Deweck (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I received your email
I prefer to have discussions about Wikipedia content "on-wiki," either on the article's talk page, or, for AFC submissions, by using "AFC comments" which appear above the submission and which will be removed when the submission is approved. I'm also okay with having the discussion on user talk pages. Since the discussion has already started here, then it might as well stay here.

For privacy reasons, I will not re-post your email to me here unless you ask me to. I would encourage you to re-post it or an updated version of it here and I will address any concerns that are not already addressed by others.

By the way, you have my condolences as well. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep on editing!
Dear Deweck:

I have been following the discussion here on your talk page. I am a junior reviewer, so now that the article is approaching the acceptable point I will leave it to those more experienced. However, I wanted to say that I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia by adding information about other topics for which you have access to reliable sources of information. So many people try to contribute but never do understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you decide to do so and need any help, there's a great forum for new editors at Teahouse/Questions. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anne Delong:

Many thanks for your suggestions and I will checkout the Teahouse. regarding "final" approval of the article I am a bit confused as to the procedure. Who will handle the next review? Since you did the initial review, would it not make sense for you to review it at the next stage again? Or is it another randomlt assigned editor who will handle the next stage.

Best wishes

Deweck (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I think I confused you. The Teahouse is not a place for articles to be reviewed.  Your article is in the correct place already.  The Teahouse is a place to ask questions if you are trying to figure out something and need help (for instance, if your infobox format is messed up, or you want to create a certain kind of table, or you're not sure what one of the policies means, etc.)

The Articles for Creation queue is over two weeks long right now, because there are over 1400 articles waiting to be reviewed. Substantial articles such as the one you have created need to be checked over carefully by an experienced reviewer. I've only been doing this for about two weeks, although I've been doing other types of editing for several months. I try to help out by picking out articles that I know won't pass and declining them right away without waiting to get to the top of the queue. That way the experienced editors can concentrate on the ones that are in pretty good shape, and the article creators can improve their articles and then resubmit them more quickly. If you'll remember, when I reviewed the article it was a little tiny article with basically no references.

The editors are not randomly assigned, they are self-assigned, since almost everyone is a volunteer. For example, there was a page the other day where all of the references were German newspaper articles. A German speaking editor stepped up to do that one. Some reviewers specialize in reviewing sports articles. Pages that get to the top of the queue without having been declined are given a serious going over by longstanding reviewers and then added to the encyclopedia. This may take a while since there are so many waiting right now. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck
I re-submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck on your behalf so I could immediately put it in the "under review" holding area where it won't get forgotten about. I will look at it again in the next week and a half or so. See the comment I put on the page for more info. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I am getting a little bit disoriented with new people jumping in that seem to not be fully aware of the prior discussions and/or have different expectations. I do understand the desire for a health ratio of references authored or co-authored by the subject of the article and third party references. If that ratio is still too high it can be changed but there should be roughly a target to shoot for. Many thanks for re-reviewing the article. You are one of the most supportive editors I have encountered on Wikipedia so far. I am willing to make further revisions but am hoping to see the light at the end of the tunnel ....

Deweck (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The ideal ratio is zero - that is, zero first-party references, at least for things that relate to claims of notability. For academics, it's not always going to happen, but get as close as you can, even if it means greatly reducing the scope and size of the article.  Basically, barring "gotta have it" things like year of birth and year of death, if it's not important enough that someone else has written about it, then it's not important enough to put in Wikipedia.  The article on Nobel-prizewinning immunologist Rolf M. Zinkernagel is on the short end of acceptable for a Nobel-prize-winner but it would be about the right size for a scientist whose contributions to mankind were somewhat less significant.  Notice that, while it actually needs more references, the things that need to be referenced in all but the last paragraph are almost certainly written about in independent, secondary sources.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, the one thing you want to avoid is working hard on an article only to have the light at the end of the tunnel be an oncoming train. One of the main jobs of Article for creation is to keep stuff out of the encyclopedia that will likely wind up in that "train wreck."  This means only approving articles when they clearly meet the basic requirements like notability, verifiable references, lack of copyright violations, and, for living or recently-deceased people, biographies of living persons-compliance.  It also means either taking the time to do some copy-edit and formatting or, if the reviewers are in a hurry or backlogged (as they have been the last 2 months), asking the submitter to handle those tasks.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Article substantially revised by cutting it by about 30% in length, reducing the number of primary citations where the subject is the lead author to 4 out of 21, increasing the number of independent third party references and revising the main body to avoid any copyright issues with the eulogy published on the website of the de Weck family. The article is ready to be re-reviewed.

Deweck (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)}}

I am not sure what is the status of the article now. I have revised it again and it is ready for re-review after two prior rejections. It says it is under review by davidwr, so I guess I will just wait.

Deweck (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added comments and there are a few things you can help with. I am also waiting for a subject-matter expert to give it a once-over, but you don't have to wait on that to improve the submission.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Further shortened the article by (i) removing the quote by J. Ring but leaving the reference in the reference list, (ii) shortening the childhood description and renaiming that section to only focus on his education without childhood details, (iii) shortening the personal section at the end (post-retirement) to only focus on essentials. Deweck (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Alain de Weck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! j⚛e deckertalk 22:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Publication of the article and final edits are much appreciated. I did have one question to follow-up. The categories at the end refer to certain categories of scientists, year of birth, death etc... which will link to these articles. To what extend do those categories need to be manually updated and to what extent are these automatically updated by some frequency by a bot. Deweck (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw this question by chance, and it doesn't seem to have been answered. Such categories must be updated manually (though the birth and death dates won't change, of course) with some rare exceptions, such as when a category is itself renamed - then a bot will move all articles from the old category to the renamed one.
 * To make sure others see your questions and reply in a more timely manner you may want to add the help me template to your talk page when you ask a question or ask the question directly at a place like the WP:Help desk or the WP:Teahouse. Yours, Huon (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)